Judgment Header
Hady Hartanto v Yee Kit Hong and others [2014] SGHC 40
Court DecisionSGHC
[2014] SGHC 40
[2014] SGHC 40
General Division of the High Court of Singapore4 Mar 2014Suit No 679 of 2011
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Subsequent treatment
Cited in 2 later decisions. No negative treatment detected.
How this case connects
Citations and treatment detected automatically from later judgments and the authorities this decision relies on.
Cited by
2Later cases and laws citing this decision
“Defamatory Statements were made on an occasion of privilege, it is for the plaintiff to prove that the privilege was lost because of malice: Hady Hartanto v Yee Kit Hong and others [2014] 2 SLR 1127; [2014] SGHC 40 (“Hady Hartanto”) at [204]; Lim Eng Hock Peter at [36], citing Horrocks at 149–150.”
“SLR(R) 86 [45]–[50] and [57] (qualified privilege); Halsbury’s Singapore Defamation at para 96.255. Malice may be proved in one of two ways (Hady Hartanto v Yee Kit Hong and others [2014] 2 SLR 1127; [2014] SGHC 40; Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lin Jian Wei and another and another appeal [2010] 4 SLR 331 at [35]–[38], [40] and”
Authorities cited
0Earlier cases and laws this decision relies on
No outgoing citations detected.
Auto-detected from judgment text; not a substitute for a citator check.
Case Metadata
Case No: Suit No 679 of 2011
Case Metadata
Court: General Division of the High Court of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2014-03-04
Something wrong on this page?
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.